‘In Campbell v Bromley Magistrates’ Court [2017] EWCA Civ 1161 the Court of Appeal has confirmed that that there are no “fruits of the forbidden tree” consequences when it comes to the forfeiture of cash seized in accordance with Chapter 3 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (“POCA”).’

‘On the 27th April 2017 the Criminal Finance Act (‘CFA 2017’) received Royal Assent. The Criminal Finance Act 2017 ushers in wide-ranging reforms to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (‘POCA 2002’). This article is part of a series of short comment pieces highlighting some of the main changes the CFA 2017 makes. It also covers issues related to Barnaby’s previous piece which set out some of the changes the Criminal Finance Bill enacted.’

‘A couple of county court cases on Airbnb/short let use by leaseholders. One was reported in the newspapers, the other has not been reported anywhere before. Both show the potentially serious consequences of leaseholders letting out on short lets, where lease clauses arguably prevent it. We have seen the clause ‘use only as a private residence’ in the Upper Tribunal Nemcova, and subletting without consent, “otherwise than as a private residence for occupation by a single household” and carrying out a trade, business or profession from the Property in the FTT in LON/00AY/LBC/2015/0021. In both these cases, other lease clauses were involved, so there is an extension of the kind of clause catching Airbnb/short let use.’

‘Imagine receiving instructions from a client that his mother has died intestate but that a sibling had taken the property (the principal asset of the estate) and was not prepared to sell the property and share the proceeds of sale 50 / 50.’

‘Property analysis: Is relief from forfeiture only available to claimants with proprietary or possessory rights? Barrister Robert Bowker, of Tanfield Chambers, considers the recent High Court decision in General Motors UK v Manchester Ship Canal Company.’

‘The tail-end of 2015 threw up one of those London bus-type quirks where in less than a fortnight I acted for a landlord, a lessee and a mortgagee in three cases concerning, at least in part, the issues of (a) service of forfeiture proceedings, and (b) the defendant’s non-attendance at the first hearing at which a possession order was made.’

‘It is a requirement of the court rules that when a landlord seeks to forfeit a residential lease by issuing a claim in court, that claim must be served on a mortgagee. The purpose of this provision is to make sure that the bank is able to apply for relief from forfeiture (and hence reinstate its security) before it is too late. But what happens if the bank is served with the claim, the tenant and the bank do not attend the hearing, the lease is forfeited and the possession order subsequently enforced with the result that title is closed and the bank loses its security?’

‘In 2004 two banks entered into arrangements designed to take advantage of the provisions of Chapter 2 of Part 7 of the lncome Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, as substituted, which created a special regime for employment-related securities whereby “restricted securities” (including, by section 423(2), shares which were subject to a condition providing for their forfeiture in certain circumstances so as to render their market value less than it otherwise would be but for that condition) were, by section 425(2) and 429, exempt from income tax. Each bank invoked a scheme whereby (i) it set up a company merely for the purposes of the scheme, which undertook no activities beyond its participation in the scheme, was to be liquidated upon the termination of the scheme, and the memorandum and articles of which contained conditions designed to comply with Chapter 2, and (ii) the shares of the company were to be allocated to specified employees in lieu of a cash bonus. In the first case there was a condition for an immediate and automatic sale of the shares if, on any date during a specified three week period, the closing value of the FTSE 100 Index exceeded a defined “trigger level”, the probability of which was unlikely but in any event was hedged against so that in the event of a forced sale the employees would not be materially worse off. In the second case there was a provision which, in effect, provided that an employee would forfeit his shares if he voluntarily resigned or was dismissed for misconduct during the first eight weeks after the company was set up. In both cases, once the exemptions from income tax conferred by sections 425(2) and 429 had accrued, the shares were redeemable by the employees for cash. The revenue took the view that the banks were to be treated as having paid the relevant employees cash sums equal to their share allocation and issued PAYE determinations and NIC decisions against each bank, as the body liable to deduct such sums. Each bank appealed. The First-tier Tribunal, in separate decisions, held that Parliament could not have intended that the exemption should apply to arrangements contrived purely in order to obtain the exemption but having no other business or commercial purpose. On appeals heard together the Upper Tribunal held that the scheme in the first case met the requirements of the legislation and so allowed that bank’s appeal, but held that the scheme in the second case did not fully comply with the terms of Chapter 2 in that, on the facts, the company had been set up in a way which did not comply with section 429. On appeal by the revenue in the first case and by the bank in the second case, the Court of Appeal upheld the Upper Tribunal’s decision in the first case on like ground and, having reversed the factual finding in the second case, allowed that bank’s appeal on the ground that its scheme also met the requirements of Chapter 2.’

‘Forfeiture of (residential) long leases is a controversial subject: on the one hand, it’s clear that there has to be a practical and accessible route for landlords to enforce covenants, whether as to payment of monies or more general “management” covenants (e.g. stopping people just removing load bearing walls); but, on the other, the potential for an enormous (and almost always disproportionate) benefit to the landlord if the lease actually is forfeited is pretty hard to justify. Moreover, as a result of both the general drafting techniques in long leases and some [ahem] interesting Court of Appeal decisions, there is a pretty good case that a landlord can recover his legal and professional costs of pursuing forfeiture matters, even if the breach is trivial or if relief would be granted.’

‘Mixed residential and commercial developments frequently cause problems for the residential occupiers and work for lawyers, in particular when the commercial units are let to bars or restaurants which create noise and nuisance in the evenings and at weekends.’

‘People who drive a car while they are in Britain illegally face being jailed and having their vehicle seized under powers included in the government’s latest immigration bill. Most of the measures in the legislation, published on Thursday, are designed to create “a hostile environment” for migrants who are in Britain unlawfully and have already been strongly trailed by ministers since the general election. The Commons second reading of the bill is scheduled for 13 October, shortly after the Conservative party conference.’

‘In Freifeld v West Kensington Court Limited [2015] EWCA Civ 806, long-lessees had deliberately granted a future sub-lease of a commercial unit to a Chinese restaurant in breach of their alienation covenant not to sublet without landlord’s consent. An initial application for relief from forfeiture failed, because the tenants had wilfully breached their alienation covenant, and because there was an extensive history of neglectful management by the tenants of their obligations under the headlease. The judge concluded that the relationship between the tenants and their landlord had become dysfunctional and that it should not be re-imposed on the landlord by the grant of relief to the tenants.’Full story

‘Where the court in another jurisdiction made an order for the restoration of shares to their owner in consequence of the abandonment of forfeiture proceedings by the prosecuting authority in that jurisdiction, the prosecuting authority in the United Kingdom was not prevented from initiating proceedings against the proceeds of sale of those shares located within the United Kingdom.’

‘A tenant who “wilfully” breached the conditions of his lease by sub-letting to an obnoxious sub-tenant without the consent of the ultimate landlord should not be forced to forfeit the lease immediately, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’Full story

‘We don’t usually (indeed ever) repost previous material on NL. But I’m making an exception for this one, because I think it is timely. Flexible tenancies have been in existence for a while in some boroughs and I would expect that it is round about now that possession proceedings for a fault based grounds (rather than the end of the term and non-renewal of the flexible tenancy) would be starting to happen. I haven’t seen any yet, but my local boroughs don’t have flexible tenancies.’

“The family home of a man convicted of attempting to recruit two undercover police officers to fight British soldiers in Afghanistan is set to become the first to be seized in the UK under terrorism laws.”

“The family of a grandfather convicted of attempting to recruit two undercover police officers to fight for the Taliban have spoken of their ‘torture’ as they face the prospect of becoming the first in Britain to have their home seized by the courts under anti-terrorism laws.”

Sign up for the daily email

“Current Awareness is the simplest and most reliable way for lawyers to keep up to date with what is going on in the legal world. The Inner Temple Library team never miss an important event or article.”